|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Death before the 'Fall'? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
lfen,
I wasn't clear on that. I withdraw my objection to the notion that it makes any sense to assert lions could be herbivorous. Why don't you open up a thread and explain why it takes more faith to believe that lions ate veggies then to believe an ape one day gave birth to a human? Why don't you open up a thread and defend those incredibly ignorant statements suggesting that readers of the Bible think dentists are not necessary, farmers should farm without ever praying, scientists should not do science, and God is out to deceive everyone? You could also demonstrate how you can lump all Bible belief along with every form of superstition as you implied. This message has been edited by jaywill, 01-03-2006 01:48 PM This message has been edited by jaywill, 01-03-2006 01:49 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6496 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Why don't you open up a thread and explain why it takes more faith to believe that lions ate veggies then to believe an ape one day gave birth to a human? He, nor has any scientist, ever made that claim.
Why don't you open up a thread and defend those incredibly ignorant statements suggesting that readers of the Bible think dentists are not necessary, farmers should farm, scientists should not do science, and God is out to deceive everyone? Huh? The Bible has nothing to do with science, and therefore Ifen was OT an so are we for that matter.
You could also show demonstrate how you can lump all Bible belief along with every form of superstition as you implied. The Bible is loaded with superstition. Would you like to discuss this jaywill? I will open up a thread for it if you so desire. Please say yes/no.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
He, nor has any scientist, ever made that claim. You probably make the claim. It is only that you attempt to soften the implication by saying that it happened over millions of years. Somehow the thought of slow gradualism will soften the premise. And the premise is that something non-human gave birth to a human. Long time is used to make it seem more plausible that a man descended from an ape. All together now "YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION!" Okay,Okay, in all the pictures that scientists have artists draw for them, the ancestral creature LOOKS like an ape. So there. When you take away all the padding of millions of years and imagined intermediate stages of Homo this and homo that and homo the other, what do you have basically? A non-human had to one day give birth to a human.
The Bible is loaded with superstition. Would you like to discuss this jaywill? I will open up a thread for it if you so desire. Please say yes/no. You can do what you want Yaro. I plan to open up a thread on the biblical teaching about what the effects of unbelief and rejection of God are on the normal function of the mind. Maybe we can kick some of it around there. I plan to call it something like "The Effects of Unbelief in God on the Mind" from the standpoint of the Bible's own statements about the matter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6496 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
You probably make the claim. It is only that you attempt to soften the implication by saying that it happened over millions of years. Somehow the thought of slow gradualism will soften the premise. And the premise is that something non-human gave birth to a human. Long time is used to make it seem more plausible that a man descended from an ape. All together now "YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION!" Okay,Okay, in all the pictures that scientists have artists draw for them, the ancestral creature LOOKS like an ape. So there. 1) Artists are not scientists. 2) It didn't happen "one day". 3) Gradualism is the only explanation and if you don't like it I'm sorry. How do you suppose we went from wolf to Chihuahua? hint: Gradualism.
When you take away all the padding of millions of years and imagined intermediate stages of Homo this and homo that and homo the other, what do you have basically? A non-human had to one day give birth to a human. Nope. A population changed over time. Again Wolf -> Chihuahua. It happened, we did it. Little steps along the way. No reason we can't streatch the same thing over millions of years.
You can do what you want Yaro. Oh, thank you.
I plan to open up a thread on the biblical teaching about what the effects of unbelief and rejection of God are on the normal function of the mind. Maybe we can kick some of it around there. That actually sounds like a very fun topic. Please open it. If you want a GD I'm game.
I plan to call it something like "The Effects of Unbelief in God on the Mind" from the standpoint of the Bible's own statements about the matter. Sure. Sounds like fun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
1) Artists are not scientists. Some of them are. And they often work together to illustrate texts books and give picturial ideas of their theories. When they do I assume that the scientists are directing the artists what to draw and what ideas they want conveyed.
2) It didn't happen "one day". Sooner or latter an offspring had to come out that was of a different species. Creature N had to produce creature N+1 of a different species. A human being had to come out of the womb of a nun-human being at some point. And that was on some day.
3) Gradualism is the only explanation and if you don't like it I'm sorry. How do you suppose we went from wolf to Chihuahua? hint: Gradualism. And I know the corn I eat which is so delicious was once wild and scrawny. The Indians figured out how to gradually raise it to be the plump ear of corn grains that we eat. So a Chihuahua descended from a wolf. Sounds like a step backwards to me. Sounds like some form of degeneration. A few years back in Boston the Boston Globe ran an article defending Darwinian Evolution. All I remember was that they reserved an entire page to a huge picture of a distinguished beared Darwin. I don't recall anything except that huge picture. It was like "How DARE they question the Old Sage." I guess it was designed to make people fall on their knees and recite five "Hail Darwins". Thoroughly religious. "Hail Darwin, Full of Grades" Maybe the fossil primates you have discovered are degenerated humans rather than missing links between apes and humans. Yaro, you want to believe that non-humans gave descent to humans, you go ahead and believe that. This message has been edited by jaywill, 01-03-2006 05:17 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
Jaywill and Yaro,
You are off topic. This thread is not about evolution. Please refrain from continuing this discussion in this thread. Please direct any comments concerning this post to the appropriate link listed below. Thank you This message has been edited by AdminPD, 01-04-2006 05:38 AM Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
And where does one find this in the story? I see no passage anywhere in the story that indicates that Adam was actually immortal. Instead, there's continual talk of the possibility of Adam dying. It isn’t found explicitly in the story, I was talking from my old church angle, where this story is not taken in isolation from the rest of the Bible. But I DO agree that taken by itself the Eden myth doesn’t explicitly claim that Adam was immortal when he was created. Although I do think it implies that there was a possibility that Adam COULD become immortal, which is not my old church’s angle ! God had placed the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the middle of Eden. Gen 2:16-17 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." God hadn’t forbidden Adam from eating the fruit from the tree of life, does this mean that Adam was already immortal and thus it wouldn’t matter if he ate from that tree, or does it mean that Adam would, some time in the future, be allowed to eat from the tree of life and gain immortality, or does it mean something else? It may be that when we consider that Adam was to die when he ate the fruit of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil that the opportunity to become immortal was removed, perhaps God would only have allowed Adam and Eve immortality if they remained innocent? Perhaps if they had not disobeyed God at the first temptation then God would have let them eat from the tree of life. It is guesswork, if taking the Eden myth in isolation from the rest of the Bible. My own take on the Eden myth is that it was constructed by philosophers to provide answers to ultimate questions. Thing such as, why do people die, why is there a natural enmity between man and snakes, why is childbirth painful, why is life so difficult (agrarian society), things like that.
Adam was always going to die. God told him that if he ate of the tree of knowledge, he would die a physical death that very day before the sun set. See, this is where I have a little problem, and you know I am not one to swallow any old Bible tale, but I have difficulty in accepting that the author (s) of the Eden myth were so lax as to have Adam live for hundreds of years after the day he ate the fruit. The Old Testament was written by very intelligent people, it is difficult to imagine that they wouldn’t see such an obvious mistake. So, what else could be going on? I think it could be that the opportunity to gain eternal life was taken away because it is only after the Fall that God says: Gen 3:21-22 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." Adam wasn’t forbidden to eat from the tree of life before the Fall, it was only fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that was forbidden, so something must have happened to panic God. It looks clear that God panics when Adam and Eve learn what good and evil is and He immediately protects the tree of life just in case they eat from it. I would say that this would be a good argument for Adam and Eve being mortal when they were created because God’s panic implies that once they become immortal then they would stay immortal. So, in a sense, Adam did die that day, and remember that yom doesn’t have to mean a 24 hour period. Adam may have ”died’ because the opportunity to gain immortality was removed.
Why is god so scared over Adam and Eve becoming immortal? It may be that death was the only real deterrent that God had to threaten them with, isn’t the death penalty supposed to be the ultimate deterrent? It does state that God was concerned because they would became gods like Him, then who would worship Yahweh? Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Did God kick all the animals out of the Garden? Do the worms left in the Garden that eat the fruit of the Tree of Life live forever? Do the animals that eat the fruit of the Tree of Life live forever? If a bat eats the fruit of the Tree of Life does it become a Vampire?
Apparently, it is only those with knowledge of good and evil who were banned from eating from the tree of life. Now, if only God was so stupid and allowed the garden to be washed away in His Flood, we could have a wee nibble of the tree of life. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
God hadn’t forbidden Adam from eating the fruit from the tree of life, does this mean that Adam was already immortal and thus it wouldn’t matter if he ate from that tree, or does it mean that Adam would, some time in the future, be allowed to eat from the tree of life and gain immortality, or does it mean something else? Well, we can answer part of that from the contents of Genesis itself. We know that Adam is not already immortal. If he was already immortal it would make no sense to chase them out of the Garden or waste an Angel with a flaming sword when the colt done already bolted the barn. We also know that Adam had not yet eaten of the Fruit. Again, we can tell this from what is recorded in Genesis. GOD says "least they eat from the fruit". Had they eaten from the fruit it would make sense to say "continue". Finally, if critters had been created immortal initially, there would have been no reason to put a Tree of Life in the Garden in the first place. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
What biblical evidence do you have that animals ate each other prior to the Fall, or ate insects? Why do I need biblical evidence for this? Do you have any evidence that suggests that at one time all life on Earth were veggies? As Rrhain said, lions are carnivores, do you have evidence that suggests there was a time when they weren't? Anyway, the Bible doesn't say that there were no carnivores before the Fall, it isn't even implied. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Anyway, the Bible doesn't say that there were no carnivores before the Fall, it isn't even implied. this just applies to people:
quote: nothing about what animals ate. of course, abel was a shepherd well before this:
quote: so he must have killed and eviscerated an animal or two for god, just never for himself. (what was he keeping a flock for anyways? company?)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3458 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Wool from the sheep and milk from the goats. There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Wool from the sheep and milk from the goats. I agree. And possibly he kept them for reasons of worship since he did offer one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Many posters here claim that before the Fall there was no death on Earth. I have studied the Bible quite a bit, and I really do not believe that the Bible suggests this at all. If anything, the Bible suggests that there was death before the Fall since God threatened Adam with death then surely Adam would have to know what death was! Adam did not know what death was. He found out after the fact, that is when God killed an innocent animal to clothe him with its skin (type of Christ). Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Hi Ray,
Happy New Year to you.
Adam did not know what death was. Yes, I have heard this unsubstantiated claim from Christians before. What I am asking for is scriptural references to support it.
He found out after the fact, that is when God killed an innocent animal to clothe him with its skin (type of Christ). Where does the Bible say God killed the animal(s) that Adam and Eve's clothes were made from? Brian.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024